Re: Explaining the nonsense of relativity to 10+ kids - and the true mass-energy formula
Arindam Banerjee
Earlier discussions snipped for brevity. Those interested please
follow this thread that should be archived in google groups. Dear
Harry Potter fans, sorry for this intrusion but I promise this will
be
my last on this thread at least. If some of you Harry Potter fans
show keen interest in the following, I will publish something really-
really magical in your newsgroup.
> What has happened so far in our discussion is that you have corrected
> me (a non-physicist) re light reflected by a moving mirror. As you
> indicated, my error lay in using the wrong inertial frame of
> reference. My confusion remains about your frame of reference when you
> reject the analogy of (floats/river/swimmers) with (mirrors/ Earth
> motion/light progression) used to interpret the null result for the
> MMX.
I have explained to the best of my ability! Please check out
http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm and show me where the
confusion is.
In brief, you can stick floats in a river bed, but you cannot stick
mirrors into ether. I have made this point umpteen times. If the
floats float and are not stuck, there is no such thing as the Lorentz
transformation. Which outs the whole e=mcc thing.
> I understand that this experiment was conducted in order to
> demonstrate the existence of a static luminiferous aether for light
> transmission.
No. It was done to find the speed of earth in aether. They already
accepted the presence of ether, for then they thought that light was
a
wave, and all waves need media. Like, sound does not travel in
vacuum. How does light travel in space? Because there has to be a
medium - and the hypothetical medium is ether. There are evidently
two physical components to aether - the magenetic permeability and
the
electric permittivity. Maxwell related them to calculate the speed
of
light in free space.
> Those who accepted Einstein's postulate of the constancy
> of light speed in space at C (and presumably rejected the ballistic
> theory) incorporate time and/or distance contraction in order to
> accommodate the observed null result.
It was the other way around. Because of the famous null result,
Einstein postulated the constancy of speed of light, and having taken
that as a postulate, with the Lorentz transformation he worked out
that mass will be infinite at c, length will be zero at c - really-
really, actually! Thus I say, Einstein initiated a massive screw-up,
a huge bungle, which I am now straightening out.
> Everything else being equal,
> your claim of the vectorial speed of light is consistent with, and is
> an intuitive explanation for, the null result.
Certainly it is the most intuitive, correct, natural explanation for
the null result. It evidently takes a non-physics scientist to admit
this. How sad.
> That being said,
> however, it remains for you to provide evidence to support the
> vectorial, ballistic theory
Consider the following:
1. Consider wave motion - like sound. If we agree a) that sound
waves
are ballistic, that is, moving emitters discharge sound with
different
speeds with respect to a fixed receiver, and b) light is a wave
motion
then the likelihood is that light is also ballistic. Thunder and
lightning seem to prove a) as I have mentioned in this thread, and
supersonic planes you never hear after they have gone over you,
likewise.
2. The so-called redshift of stars, used to "prove" the expanding
universe theory, for stars are going away from us. Please note there
is also a "blueshift" meaning stars coming at us as well, and that is
not talked about too much. What is this redshift and blueshift, but
Doppler effect? The light from the stars moving away from us arrives
at a lower speed; hence a lower frequency or redshift is seen. From
the stars coming at us with high speed, the light speed is faster,
and
so we have a higher frequency. Just compare the speed of light from
a
redshift star and a blueshift star - are they the same? I don't
think
so. Will anyone do an experiment on this???? No, I think they'd
much
rather hang on to the old theories than try anything that could upset
them. Like, the expanding universe. However, Hubble has shown no
limits to our universe, and this is one huge evidence against the
whole SR/GR business - they had wanted Hubble to show nothing after a
finite distance, to show up the supposedly finite universe.
3. My derivation of an alternative formula to e=mcc that gives the
correct and intuitive relationship between mass and energy. That is
given at the end of this post, from the appendices of my book "To the
Stars!" published in internet around 2000. I have worked on this
line
since, and made it all crystal clear now, starting from the absolute
basics. That is all given in my new book, "The Principles of Motion"
and I am sorry I cannot quote from that. But I can say that the
formula shown below is so universal and intuitive, it accounts for
energy in all forms - from the breaking of a dam, the lighting of a
match, the energy from the sun... The entire universe now is
explained a lot better and clearer. Just from one simple but
"missing" mathematical formula!
4. There is the fact that Newton's third law does not work for
electromagnetics effects, and this is clear from the work of
Schroeder, regarding the lack of reaction from a rail gun. I invite
you to do some googling on this, at your convenience. In other words,
this is the justification for point 3 above. I was most vilely
criticised, abused, and reviled by the entire physics world in 2003
when some media notice was given to my idea that we could make
internal force engines. However, they were all cursing and abusing
and asking for peer publication, when on the other hand they were
rejecting my submissions! Anyway, the gist of it all is there, right
below.
5. To prove 3, I need to make an Internal Force Engine, that will
work
without any reaction. I have not done it yet - but the totally
negative attitude of the physics world tells me that they have
something to hide. I am sure I will do it one day, given time and
money, and that will be the final proof! Like, if e=mcc is out
totally, the thinking of physicists must change! My biggest evidence
is the totally hostile, negative and indifferent attitude of the
professional (II mean, career) physicists to my new mathematical
formula linking mass and energy.
> and to invalidate well-documented evidence
> that apparently supports Einstein's Special Relativity.
I went to the source of it all in my paper at my website. SR was a
joke to many till the atomic bomb - after that SR got the most
undeserved respectability and Einstein became a god, assiduously
cultivated in fact and fiction. However my formula relating mass and
energy explains the phenomenon of radioactivity, and the nuclear bomb
thus, much much better than the vague and really silly e=mcc. I
always thought it smelt, but it took me a long while to figure out
all
that was wrong about it. Many, many years, indeed. What about
nuclear fusion - that should have happened long ago! What about
creating the black hole, recently? They were blaming engineers for
some fault!
> Your link indicates that you have some moral objection to the
> complete relativity engendered by absence of an absolute reference in
> Einstein's theory. However, I do not believe that moral objections are
> relevant to the science involved in this discussion. For me, Science
> is neutral and does not speak to human morality.
If ToSR (theory of special relativity) had remained with science and
science alone, I would not have had any moral objections to same.
> First, my understanding of the analogy (river/floats attached to
> riverbed /swimmers) is that the river represents the moving Earth, the
> river bed represents space or, if it exists, the stationary
> luminiferous aether and the swimmers represent the progression of
> light in space or aether.
Right.
> The stationary floats in the analogy are markers for the inertial
> frame of reference of ‘stationary’ space or aether, so I do not
> understand why you believe that they have been assigned a negative
> velocity in order to make them stationary.
You can stick a float into a river bed, but you cannot stick a mirror
into aether, unless you are *still or unmoving* in that aether. The
only way the analogy works is to have the Earth STILL. Not moving,
that is.
> In the analogy, they are
> already stationary by definition.
Quite, so effectively they assume the Earth does not move in aether.
Very aristotelian, as I have always been saying! But they are also
saying that the Earth is moving, and that causes confusion! Things
were really better for the Aristotelians, when the Earth was still
and
all objects moved around the Earth. How nice. But then came Sir
Isaac Newton, found out about gravity, and along with other giants we
now have the notion that the Earth orbits the Sun.
> If you insist that the floats
> (space)
Oh no. NO. Let us get this clear. The floats are the mirrors, NOT
space. The riverbank or riverbed is the aether, or space that is
fixed. The river is the Earth in motion over and past the riverbed.
The swimmer in the river is the light.
In the analogy they fixed the float to the riverbed, and that is the
bungle. You cannot fix the mirror to aether or space, so the analogy
is not correct. But it is assumed to be correct, and that is the
second and major bungle. Thus the Lorentz transformation arising
from
the fixed-float analogy is directly used in the MMI, with disastrous
results. Please think about all this a bit more carefully.
> must be allowed to flow with the river (Earth) then you change
> the analogy to one in which space (floats) moves with the Earth
> (river).
Better check out the analogy, please revisit my site.
Space is eliminated as a frame of reference, leaving Earth as
> the only reference.
Now that can only happen if the Earth is not moving. The moment we
agree that the Earth is moving, then it is moving in Space or Aether.
And if it moves, light has to travel longer or shorter distances (the
famous D +/+ d, remember).
I believe a better analogy is provided by
> comparing the times taken for two individuals walking on the ground
> at a speed of C as they pace out the perpendicular sides of a
> square platform when a) it is stationary and b) it is moving forward
> on the ground at a speed of v.
> In the river and platform analogies, the speeds of C+v and C-v re-
> introduce the space referent and apply for an Earth (river, or
> platform ) in motion (at v) relative to points in space (stationary
> river bed floats, or the ground).
> The real difference in this thread is not that contributors deny your
> correct claim that the ballistic theory of light is consistent with
> the null result of the MM, but that you reject Special Relativity on
> that basis.
I am sure that if they are honest, they cannot but admit that if the
speed of light is not constant, SR has no leg to stand on. My point
is simply that if the Earth moves, and light is ballistic as you put
it, then c cannot be constant, as the MMI experiment proves just
that. Different lengths in space are traversed in the same time, so
the speeds of light have to vary accordingly. No other way out!
> My second confusion arises from your failure to recognize that the
> apparent differences in frequency of a wave form observed by
> stationary or moving observers is not the same as the real
> differences emitted from stationary or moving emitters.
What you were or are confused about is whether or not the speed of
sound changes with the speed of the emitter/receiver. There is no
apparent difference of frequency involved - the difference in
frequency is absolute and real. And that happens because the wave
passes past faster or slower, thus making more or less counts per
unit
time, or different frequencies. I am sure I have gone over this
before.
> For example, I contend that motion of an observer changes the distance
> and time for the wave to travel from the emitter to the observer but
> with no change in the intrinsic speed of the wave form.
This is highly contradictory. Something reaches faster but has the
same speed... bizarre, but then such is the whole of modern SR
physics. It has nothing to do with science or even reason and logic.
> To claim
> otherwise is to insist that the state of the observer acts at a
> distance to change the state (speed/ frequency) of the wave front
> emitted.
Look at it this way. Between any observer and emitter there is a
speed say v. The speed of sound is say V. Then the sound reaches
the
observer at V + v. Why does this happen? Please think a bit
carefully, and you may understand. In any case, I hold that the
phenomenon of thunder and lightning, prove my point. The masses of
air that are going about the lightning strike in various angles send
sound to the ear sooner and later. The high frequencey sounds reach
us
first, the low frequency sounds reach us later. This proves the V+v
theory. If you don't like it, sorry, but Nature supports me!
Okay, to help you, just think like this. The sound is always
emitting
the wave at speed V, and does not know or care about the speeds v
around. Like, if I throw a ball at 50 Kmph and you are still, it
will
reach you at 50 Kmph. But if you are moving towards me at 10 Kmph,
it
will reach you at 60 Kmph. If you are moving away from me at 20
Kmph,
it will reach you at 40 Kmph. In any case, your movement does not
affect the speed with which I throw the ball, that is always
constant. Similarly for sound - the emitter will always throw it at
V, but the receive will receive it at V+v where v is the relative
velocity at that time.
If you believe this, furthur discussion would be way over my
> head. :-)
I hope you could understand my above explanation.
> Also, based on speed = frequency x wavelength, you imply that the
> speed of a wave form is directly proportional to its frequency
Yes, provided that the speed is V+v as I have said earlier.
> That
> is, change in frequency is independent of change in wave length.
And dependent upon the change in velocity of the wave.
> This
> is evident from your insistence that motion of an observer through a
> waveform changes its frequency and speed but not its wavelength. It
> seems to me that the speed of the waveform remains constant whilst
> the apparent wave length changes as an inverse of the change in
> apparent frequency.
No, thunder and lightning and redshift and blueshift show that the
velocities of sound and light change with the velocities of the
sources emitting them. The wavelength does not contract with each
and
every observer - as the wave is passing faster or slower the counts
at a particular point will be correspondingly more or less or in
other
words the frequency will change.
> I will be pleased if you have the interest and time to continue our
> discussion but, whatever your decision, let me thank you for what has
> been a courteous, interesting and, for me, an educational exchange.
> Regards
> Zinnic
Thank you very much too, Zinnic, for your kind attention and some
supportive statements. You seemed to be getting on better in your
last post, and this seems to be a regression to your earlier points.
Ah well. My hope lies in the Harry Potter fans. They are young,
keen, unspoilt and the future belongs to them.
As said earlier, I am posting the derivation of my alternative
formula
relating mass and energy. From my book, never published in print,
"To
the Stars!"
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Appendix A: Velocity Addition and Unlimited Energy
Consider a body with an Internal Force Engine in outer space. We
shall discuss the engineering aspects of such engines in later
chapters. For now let us say that with a hit (an internal collision
creating a quantum change in velocity, see Appendix B for more
details), the speed of the body increases by v. The energy required
doing that is E, and the total mass of the body is m. The kinetic
energy gained by the body as a result of the first hit is 0.5*m*v2,
following the well-known formula. Let us expect E to be rather
greater than 0.5*m*v2 , as internal losses are involved. So let:
E = k * 0.5*m*v2
where k is a factor greater than one.
In outer space, there are no forces to retard the motion of the body.
We assume that after another hit of same intensity, the velocity of
the body increases by v with respect to its moving reference, and 2v
with respect to its rest state.
This is a most major assumption, this one about “velocity addition”.
It is justified by our current understanding of physics. After
attaining the velocity v from the first hit, the body is at rest with
respect to the inertial reference frame moving at velocity v with
respect to the earlier (zero velocity) reference. A second hit will
increase this velocity by v with respect to that inertial reference
frame moving at velocity v, or 2v with respect to the rest state.
After N hits, the velocity will be N*v. The kinetic energy of the
body will be
0.5*m*(N*v)2,
while the total input energy required to bring it to that state will
be
0.5*N*k*m*v2, as a result of N continuous hits.
The difference in input and output energy will be
0.5*N*m*v2*(k – N).
Now N can be unlimited, as we may have as many hits as required or
mechanically possible. Whereas k is finite. So there is a negative
energy output, which means that more energy is being created in this
setup than lost. Which means the energy is being created by this
particular engineering method, out of nothing. So, the law of
conservation of energy is not correct, where bodies driven by
internally generated forces are concerned.
Appendix B – Design formulas
This is a small paper that deals with the collision of two perfectly
elastic bodies. “Elastic” in the physical sense, meaning that no
energy losses are involved in the actual impact. This is an
assumption. In practice, one expects to minimise the actual energy
losses of heat and sound.
Examples of such collision may be found in such board games as
billiards or carrom. In carrom, we have a “striker”, which is a thin
cylindrical object, sliding on a smooth surface, hitting a “coin” of
similar nature but lighter, usually with the idea of “pocketing” the
“coin”.
The “after” velocities of the two colliding bodies may be found if
their masses and initial velocities are known, applying the law of
conservation of linear momentum and the law of conservation of
energy. If:
- m1, m2 are the masses of the colliding bodies (let us consider
m1
heavier and hitting the stationary m2)
- v1, v2 are the initial velocities of masses m1 and m2
respectively
- v3, v4 are the final velocities of masses m1 and m2
respectively.
Then, m1*v1 + m2* v2 = m1* v3 + m2* v4.
And, m1*v1* v1 + m2* v2* v2 = m1* v3* v3 + m2* v4* v4.
Let
- c1= m1* v1 + m2* v2
- c2=0.5*( m1* v1* v1 + m2* v2* v2)
- c3=c2 – 0.5*(c1*c1/ m2)
- c4=0.5* m1*(1 + m1/ m2)
- c5=c1*m1/ m2
- c6=-1*c5/c4
- c7=-1*c3/c4
Then
v3=0.5*(-1*c6+sqrt(c6*c6 – 4*c7))
v4=(c1 – m1*v3)/m2
A small worksheet program could give the results of the final
velocities of the colliding masses. Knowing m1, m2, v1, v2 we can
work out c1, c2,… c7 and then v3 and v4. By playing around with the
values of m1, m2, v1, v2 we can design Internal Force Moved Bodies.
Appendix C: Mathematical Derivation and Machines for Unlimited
Energy
Note: The following article was posted in Usenet, in such scientific
newgroups as sci.physics.electromag and sci.physics.energy. These
newsgroups are read by graduate students, researchers and
professional
engineers. (Usenet is a world-wide electronic bulletin board
covering
many thousands of topics – anyone from anywhere can post there.) It
was a greatly daring thing to do, for Usenet is the ultimate coffee-
shop, or public house of ideas. Most traditional researchers avoid
putting their original ideas in Usenet, as anyone can tear them into
pieces, figuratively speaking. It is safer and conventional to
publish in acclaimed journals, or build a web site over which they
can
have control.
It was with trepidation that I ventured to see the result of my
action. I was elated to find no response at all to the article in
the
newsgroup that really mattered, sci.physics.energy. In the other
newsgroup, there were three responses, to which I replied as shown
below. To my responses, there was no further reaction.
I also submitted the article to some scientific journals and
magazines. I am still waiting for any reply pointing out any flaw in
my approach. So it seems that if I am in error, it is of a new
nature, and so, in that sense, remarkable. But if I am right, I have
truly set the human race to the stars!
Since I published my paper in end January 2000, I have been on the
lookout for responses in Usenet. I publish many writings there, on a
variety of subjects, and do indulge in vigorous debate. People who
disagree with me know about the following article and at times strike
a sarcastic note regarding it, but I am glad to say that upon
challenge they are unable to provide any evidence to discredit my
theory about unlimited energy. In this give-and-take, some impartial
personalities noted that Heinlein apparently did write somewhere that
a rocket ship accelerating at 1g for a year would exceed the speed of
light, disproving Einstein thereby, as I have said in my book. I must
admit that the idea of walkways moving at different speeds came to me
from one of Dr Isaac Asimov's science fiction novels, as also from my
daily trips on the subway.
Mathematical Derivation and Machines for Unlimited Energy
Arindam Banerjee
31 January 2000, Melbourne
*****
Mathematical derivation for unlimited energy, or showing that the law
of conservation of energy is invalid for mass transfers across
relativistic systems.
*****
Energy is force multiplied by the distance over which the force is
applied. Thus if force F=Ma is applied over time T, at the end of
which the body Mgets velocity V after travelling distance S, then the
energy content of thebody increases by MaS which by Newtonian
mechanics is Ma0.5aTT, or0.5MaTaT, or 0.5MVV. This is assuming that
the body initially was at restwith respect to some inertial reference
frame.
Now consider a system of initial reference frames, at velocities 0,
v,
2v, 3v, etc. (This can be visualised as moving walkways, such as
exist
in airports.) These reference frames are located such that mass M can
be moved from the initial reference frame at velocity 0 to one at
velocity v, from that at v to another at 2v, from that at 2v to
another at 3v, etc.
Let the body of mass M be moved from the initial reference frame of
velocity 0 to the reference frame of velocity v. (This is equivalent
to a person stepping on an escalator.) As soon as M touches the
higher velocity reference frame, it has a velocity -v with respect to
a point on the higher velocity frame. After a time t, mass M will
attain the speed of 0 with respect to the new reference frame, and v
with respect to the earlier reference frame. This will be due to the
frictional or other forces involved, acting over the time t. Let
this
frictional force have the acceleration value a. The energy gained by
the mass M, following the above derivation, is 0.5Mvv, obtained by
travelling the distance 0.5att. That is, the work done by the system
to give it this extra energy is 0.5Mvv.
Once the mass M has reached the velocity v, let it be moved to the
next reference frame of velocity 2v. As soon as it touches this
reference frame, it will have a speed of -v with respect to a point
on
the higher velocity frame, exactly as earlier. Following the earlier
derivation, work of 0.5Mvv will be required to bring body M to same
speed as any point on this reference frame with velocity 2v. But the
kinetic energy of the body M, travelling at velocity 2v with respect
to the initial zero velocity reference, is 0.5M(2v)(2v).
Proceeding similarly, we shall find that to bring the body M to speed
3v in the next reference frame will require work done of 0.5Mvv, but
the kinetic energy of the body will be 0.5M(3v)(3v).
Let there be N reference systems, and let the final velocity be V=Nv.
Then the final kinetic energy of the mass M is 0.5MVV or 0.5MNNvv.
But the work done by this system to raise the the kinetic energy to
that level is only N*0.5Mvv.
So the extra energy obtained from this setup is 0.5MNvv(N-1). (If
N=1, it is zero, as we find, normally.)
This shows that the law of conservation of energy is invalid for this
system involving mass transfers across reference frames with
ascending
relative velocities. It also indicates how energy can be obtained
from nothing. It challenges all established engineering concepts,
and
gives the theoretical basis for perpetual motion engines that will
not
need any fuel nor create environmental degradation.
Perpetual Motion Engines
The above derivation implicitly indicates the technology for
perpetual
motion engines, that is, say, a generator that will produce
electricity without need for any kind of fuel, or external source of
motion.
We have a system of moving "walkways" of velocities v, 2v, 3v,...Nv.
A body of mass M is dropped from zero velocity to the walkway of
velocity v. As soon as it reaches velocity v (by frictional forces
involving drag or work done by the motor powering this reference
frame) it is shifted to the higher speed walkway of velocity 2v, and
so on, till it reaches the velocity Nv. From the earlier derivation,
it has more kinetic energy than the work required to make it acquire
same.
(One may think of walking across such a system of walkways - what a
terrific amount of kinetic energy we can have by simply keeping on
stepping from one to another!) The kinetic energy should be converted
into electrical energy. Conversion of kinetic to electrical energy
is
what electrical power generation is all about. Some kind of turbine
may be devised so that blades are turned by the high speed mass, such
turning blades then producing electricity using a generator. We
could
think of a stream of sand-like high speed particles used for such
energy generation. If extra energy is produced, after taking care of
the energy required to run the reference systems, then we indeed have
a generator not needing fuel.
Or we could think of a reverse rail gun. In a rail gun a projectile
is accelerated by a heavy current passing down rails and through the
projectile in the presence of a strong magnetic field. In the
reverse
rail gun, the high speed mass is popped into such a rail gun. By
breaking the magnetic lines of force at high speeds, with proper
electrical contacts it generates very heavy current, and also
decelerates. This I speculate should be a highly efficient way of
generating electricity.
*****
(Responses from the Usenet newsgroup’s readers follow.)
From: "Arindam Banerjee" <a.baner...@trl.oz.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag
References: <mLfl4.3231$VJ1.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com> <3895D26D.
30C01...@cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Mathematical derivation and machines for unlimited
energy
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 08:31:48 +1100
Lines: 56
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
(Name of author deleted) wrote in message <3895D26D.
30C01...@cern.ch>...
>Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> Mathematical Derivation and Machines for Unlimited Energy
>You're claiming that accelerating something from speed 0 to v requires the same energy as
>accelerating it from v to 2 v. That's simply wrong!
Yes, you are right, for a single reference frame. I acknowledged
that
straight off in my paper.
But (and here is the great conceptual leap which will give us
unlimited energy) for multiple reference frames moving at v, 2v, 3v,
4v, etc, mass transfer from one to next, 3v to 4v say, takes the same
energy as for 2v to 3v, or 10v to 11v. This is because exactly as
you
say, we are accelerating the body of mass m from 0 to v, in all
cases.
Imagine a series of conveyer belts, moving at v, 2v, 3v, etc. You
step across them, till you reach the velocity Nv. (I gave this
example in my paper.) You have a very high kinetic energy, but the
energy required to make you acquire that is much lower. The
difference, minus all losses, should give us sweet energy without
external sources such as fuel, water, sun etc.
Of course, only experiment can prove me right or wrong. I wish I had
the means to follow up on my idea. I would welcome anyone to try.
Successful outcome would mean many trillions of dollars worth of
business. All power plants could run without fuel, as could ships,
trucks, homes, cars, even appliances. The pollution problem would be
wiped out. All building industries would get a tremendous boost.
Deserts would be greened, people could live in any corner of the
universe they chose to...
Worth a try. A dogmatic no based upon worship of "conservation laws"
is unworthy of those with scientific background.
In any case, I am very very glad to know that I am the first to have
proposed this new idea. I posted this to sci.energy as well, and
there has been no response, which indicates that this idea was
original - no one published it before.
Arindam Banerjee
From: "Arindam Banerjee" <a.baner...@trl.oz.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag
References: <mLfl4.3231$VJ1.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
<3896F477.F7E0D...@tripoint.org>
Subject: Re: Mathematical derivation and machines for unlimited
energy
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 08:38:23 +1100
Lines: 26
(Name of author deleted) wrote in message
<3896F477.F7E0D...@tripoint.org>...
>> *****
>> Mathematical derivation for unlimited energy, or showing that the law
>> of conservation of energy is invalid for mass transfers across relativistic
>> systems.
>> *****
>You've never heard of "Special Relativity" have you?
Certainly Mr ***,
My paper was based upon appreciation of the correctness of the first
postulate of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. Since you seem
to be aware of that, I see no point in posting it. It is surprising
though that you seem unable to appreciate that that postulate may be
seen as a key basis for my scientific breakthrough.
Arindam Banerjee
From: "Arindam Banerjee" <a.baner...@trl.oz.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag
References: <mLfl4.3231$VJ1.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
<38970EA1.DA9B...@mmm.com>
Subject: Re: Mathematical derivation and machines for unlimited
energy
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 08:45:11 +1100
Lines: 45
(Name of author deleted) wrote in message
<38970EA1.DA9B...@mmm.com>...
>Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> Thus if force F=Ma
>that is the small velocity approximation.
>Newton wrote it this way:
>F = d(Mv)/dt
>Newton was a careful scientists and realized
>that he could not assume M was a constant.
Quite true, but I was taking M constant. And since I wanted laymen
to
understand my paper for its scientific value, I avoided derivatives.
When M is a function of time, as v, then
F = v*d(M)/d(t) + M*d(V)/d(t)
the formula you use when designing rockets where M is a function of
time.
As M remains constant in my paper,
d(M)/d(t) = 0
So F = M*d(V)/d(t)
or F=Ma
If I wanted to confuse people with mathematics, believe me, I could
do
so. I choose to be as clear as possible, instead. Heightening the
poetic aspects, that is.
Arindam Banerjee
Richard Dobson
> - snip -
>
>
.
>
> Consider the following:
> 1. Consider wave motion - like sound. If we agree a) that sound
> waves
> are ballistic, that is, moving emitters discharge sound with
> different
> speeds with respect to a fixed receiver, and b) light is a wave
> motion
NO, NO, NO. The speed of sound is the same for a given medium and
temperature etc. Particles do not move, except locally in respect of
(possibly periodic) variations of pressure and/or displacement. With a
moving source relative to the listener, the perceived frequency changes
(Doppler etc), but the ~speed~ of sound itself does not. In water the
effect is dominated by non-linear behaviour. Motion creates a compressed
or expanded ~periodicity~ to the waves (directly analogous to optical
redshift), but the speed of the air itself is unchanged. Do not confuse
the motion of waves (which is in a very real sense an illusion, as can
be demonstrated easily to kids even younger than ten - use a suspended
"slinky") with motion of the medium. Do not try to "explain" anything to
ten-year olds if you do not understand this!
A thought experiment - describe the action of a "Leslie" rotating
loudspeaker as famously associated with the Hammond organ.
Richard Dobson
Androcles
"Richard Dobson" <richar...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pToln.157173$Lu5.1...@newsfe02.ams2...
A thought experiment - describe the action of headphones when in
a plane travelling at 500 mph wrt to the ground beneath (Doppler etc).
Richard Dobson
>>
> NO, NO, NO.
> A thought experiment - describe the action of headphones when in
> a plane travelling at 500 mph wrt to the ground beneath (Doppler etc).
> Do not try to "explain" anything to ten-year olds if you do not
> understand this!
>
Headphones observed by whom?
Hmm, well, why don't you have a a go? If on your own head, there is no
motion of source relative to the listener. Much like the passenger next
to you talking to you. What do you observe? Sadly the energy emitted
even by someone shouting is unlikely to get past the fuselage to the
outside and reach the ground, for any fixed ground-based observer to
detect. But if it did, of course Doppler shift would enter the picture,
with an effect predicated on the observer's position.
Richard Dobson
JT
wrote:
> On 09/03/2010 10:11, Androcles wrote:
>
>
>
> > NO, NO, NO.
> > A thought experiment - describe the action of headphones when in
> > a plane travelling at 500 mph wrt to the ground beneath (Doppler etc).
> > Do not try to "explain" anything to ten-year olds if you do not
> > understand this!
>
> Headphones observed by whom?
Bwahahahahahha
Androcles
> NO, NO, NO. The speed of sound is the same for a given medium and
> temperature etc. Particles do not move, except locally in respect of
> (possibly periodic) variations of pressure and/or displacement. With a
> moving source relative to the listener, the perceived frequency changes
> (Doppler etc), but the ~speed~ of sound itself does not. In water the
> effect is dominated by non-linear behaviour. Motion creates a compressed
> or expanded ~periodicity~ to the waves (directly analogous to optical
> redshift), but the speed of the air itself is unchanged. Do not confuse
> the motion of waves (which is in a very real sense an illusion, as can be
> demonstrated easily to kids even younger than ten - use a suspended
> "slinky") with motion of the medium. Do not try to "explain" anything to
> ten-year olds if you do not understand this!
>
> A thought experiment - describe the action of a "Leslie" rotating
> loudspeaker as famously associated with the Hammond organ.
>
> Richard Dobson
> On 09/03/2010 10:11, Androcles wrote:
>
>>>
>> NO, NO, NO.
>> A thought experiment - describe the action of headphones when in
>> a plane travelling at 500 mph wrt to the ground beneath (Doppler etc).
>> Do not try to "explain" anything to ten-year olds if you do not
>> understand this!
>>
>
> Headphones observed by whom?
The passenger, of course.
> Hmm, well, why don't you have a a go?
NO, NO, NO. I'll do the snipping and YOU do the thought experiment.
Richard Dobson
..
>>
>> Headphones observed by whom?
>
> The passenger, of course.
>
>> Hmm, well, why don't you have a a go?
>
> NO, NO, NO. I'll do the snipping and YOU do the thought experiment.
> A thought experiment - describe the action of headphones when in
> a plane travelling at 500 mph wrt to the ground beneath (Doppler etc).
I already hinted. Oh well, since you ostensibly prefer to snip than
answer such a question : electrical signals to h/p are converted by the
transducers into hopefully accurate ("analogous") variations of air
pressure (what we call "sound waves"), passing through the small amount
of air contained between headhones and the eardrum - and often out into
the surrounding space too so other passengers can enjoy the
pish-pish-pish of whatever acid-house-rave-thrash-garage you are
listening to. The behaviour is to a high degree dependent on the
proximity effect to obtain low bass tones from transducers that
otherwise cannot reproduce them with any acoustic power. Which is why
those remote observers only hear the upper frequency range - the splash
cymbals, not the bass drum.
The independent stimulation of each ear can give the illusion of stereo
(albeit "inside the head"), and if HRTFs are used even of sounds in (at
least) the horizontal plane, though examples I have heard to date have
been somewhat underwhelming; and of course the ear/brain do their thing
converting the pressure changes into what "we" hear.
Being in a plane (travelling at ~any~ physically realisable speed) is
~totally irrelevant~ to this behaviour. Astronauts in orbit or en route
to Mars using their Walkmans and mp3 players will hear the music just as
it sounds on the ground. Of course, as the plane ascends/descends there
may be global pressure changes which will cause ears to "pop". But that
is not related to motion, merely to pressure changes. The music or
whatever will sound ~identical~ to how it sounds when the plane is
stationary (except if the engines are stopped there will be less ambient
noise to mask it).
This is just as well, otherwise watching and listening to in-flight
films (to say nothing of announcements by the cabin crew, pilot, etc)
will sound very strange!
And of course this is far from a thought experiment, as anyone who has
actually flown in a plane, listening to stuff over headphones, will
readily attest. I am most intrigued to learn what ~you~ think the
behaviour is. Over to you, then...let the scientific truth be revealed.
Richard Dobson
Androcles
> On 09/03/2010 11:04, Androcles wrote:
> ..
>>>
>>> Headphones observed by whom?
>>
>> The passenger, of course.
>>
>>> Hmm, well, why don't you have a a go?
>>
>> NO, NO, NO. I'll do the snipping and YOU do the thought experiment.
>> A thought experiment - describe the action of headphones when in
>> a plane travelling at 500 mph wrt to the ground beneath (Doppler etc).
>
>
>
> I already hinted.
NO, NO, NO. I don't need your stupid hints, I want an explanation
of "the speed of the air itself is unchanged".
Hmm, well, why don't you have a a go?
Or even a a a a go?
Do not try to "explain" anything to ten-year olds if you do not
understand this!
I'll do the snipping, you do the thought experiment, shit-for-brains.
"Richard Dobson" <richar...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wlpln.157174$Lu5.1...@newsfe02.ams2...
> NO, NO, NO. The speed of sound is the same for a given medium and
> temperature etc. Particles do not move, except locally in respect of
> (possibly periodic) variations of pressure and/or displacement. With a
> moving source relative to the listener, the perceived frequency changes
> (Doppler etc), but the ~speed~ of sound itself does not. In water the
> effect is dominated by non-linear behaviour. Motion creates a compressed
> or expanded ~periodicity~ to the waves (directly analogous to optical
> redshift), but the speed of the air itself is unchanged. Do not confuse
> the motion of waves (which is in a very real sense an illusion, as can be
> demonstrated easily to kids even younger than ten - use a suspended
> "slinky") with motion of the medium. Do not try to "explain" anything to
> ten-year olds if you do not understand this!
>
> A thought experiment - describe the action of a "Leslie" rotating
> loudspeaker as famously associated with the Hammond organ.
>
> Richard Dobson
> On 09/03/2010 10:11, Androcles wrote:
>
>>>
>> NO, NO, NO.
>> A thought experiment - describe the action of headphones when in
>> a plane travelling at 500 mph wrt to the ground beneath (Doppler etc).
>> Do not try to "explain" anything to ten-year olds if you do not
>> understand this!
>>
>
> Headphones observed by whom?
The passenger, of course.
> Hmm, well, why don't you have a a go?
NO, NO, NO. I'll do the snipping and YOU do the thought experiment.
A thought experiment - describe the action of headphones when in
a plane travelling at 500 mph wrt to the ground beneath (Doppler etc).
Richard Dobson
> On 09/03/2010 11:04, Androcles wrote:
> ..
>>>
>>
>> The passenger, of course.
>>
>>> Hmm, well, why don't you have a a go?
>>
>> NO, NO, NO. I'll do the snipping and YOU do the thought experiment.
>> A thought experiment - describe the action of headphones when in
>> a plane travelling at 500 mph wrt to the ground beneath (Doppler etc).
>
>
>
>NO, NO, NO. I don't need your stupid hints, I want an explanation
>of "the speed of the air itself is unchanged".
>Hmm, well, why don't you have a a go?
Oh well, perhaps I should have written "the speed of sound in air itself
is unchanged". Wrote that more than once; perhaps this needed to be
repeated even more times.
End of discussion for me now - will not waste time discussing with
anti-scientists. The list is quite amusing though!
Richard Dobson
Androcles
quite amusing when challenged.
Richard Dobson
..
>> End of discussion for me now - will not waste time discussing with
>> anti-scientists. The list is quite amusing though!
>>
> Can't do the thought experiment, eh?
I already did. In a generous amount of detail detail. It is not much of
a "thought experiment" in any case - simply a context for a description
of everyday acoustics familiar to (almost) everyone. What do you
disagree with? let me tempt you by confessing that I am unaware of any
contribution the speed of the plane might make to the perception of
sounds over headphones by a passenger on the plane, or indeed to the
behaviour of the phones themselves. I am fully receptive you whatever
you have to offer on the question; but am hardly in a position to
comment on what you desist from writing.
Pompous idiots like you are
> quite amusing when challenged.
>
No challenge has been made yet. Don't forget my original reply was to
the words of Arindam Banergee, claiming, absurdly, sound was "ballistic"
(and extrapolating from that to some spurious notion of "the nonsense of
relativity"), and who has yet to make any response. Perhaps he has given
up already. Which would be a wise example to follow.
Richard Dobson
Mark
<snip>
> Arindam Banerjee
Oops, I snipped your blather, tee hee.
Is there no end to you internet posers who seek
intellectual validation?
Bet you secretly wish you were J.K.Rowling. Her
intellect has enabled her to buy ANYTHING she wants,
or go ANYWHERE at ANYTIME.
That's smart my friend. 100 years is a short time to
live. May as well enjoy one's self.
--
Mark
Androcles
> On 09/03/2010 13:31, Androcles wrote:
>> Can't do the thought experiment, eh?
>
> I already did.
NO, NO, NO, not one use of Doppler's equation,
c+v
f' = f ----------------------
c-v
What you did was run your big mouth, you arrogant, pompous
arsehole.
I want an explanation
of "the speed of the air itself is unchanged".
Hmm, well, why don't you have a a go?
Or even a a a a go?
Do not try to "explain" anything to ten-year olds if you do not
understand this!
End of discussion for me now - will not waste time discussing with
snipping shitheads.
Richard Dobson
>
> "Richard Dobson" <richar...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Arsln.340293$UQ6.1...@newsfe04.ams2...
>> On 09/03/2010 13:31, Androcles wrote:
>
>>> Can't do the thought experiment, eh?
>>
>> I already did.
>
> NO, NO, NO, not one use of Doppler's equation,
>
> c+v
> f' = f ----------------------
> c-v
>
Wrong. f' = f(c+v_listener )/(c+v_src)
Where c is the (constant) velocity of the sound in the medium itself.
The medium is understood to be linear over the domain of interest; i.e.
its density, temperature etc are constant over the volume, and with zero
net displacement.
The sign of either or both v_src and v_listener can be positive or
negative to indicate any relative motion towards or away. v_src =
"motion of the headphone", v_listener = "motion of the passenger
wearing the headphones". Given the user is wearing the headphones, v_src
= v_listener. The equation evaluates to unity. So f' = f. There is no
relative motion between headphone and ear, so there is NO DOPPLER EFFECT.
> I want an explanation
> of "the speed of the air itself is unchanged".
I corrected that - but in any case (in the absence of any wind etc) the
net state of the air (esp in an enclosed space such as a plane!) when
sound traverses it is static - pressure changes sum to unity: in effect
it has no speed anyway. There is zero net displacement. Except ~very~
locally - e.g. the instantaneous changes of velocity as detected by a
true velocity sensor such as a Microflown.
Doppler effect describes the change in ~wavelength~ as a consequence of
relative motion. it says NOTHING, of itself, about the speed of the
medium, other than that it is (in this case) constant. And since you
quote the equation with the same c above and below, clearly you accept
that too. Acoustic Doppler shift does not demonstrate any change in the
speed of sound, any more than optical Doppler shift demonstrates any
change in the speed of light.
Nevertheless, as air ~is~ a medium, it ~can~ move, in which case of
course the results may change. But the presented example involves both
the enclosed volume of a plane, and the fixed, enclosed, and [net]
motionless air between the headphone and the ear.
Other applications use Doppler to measure the motion of a medium - e.g.
blood flow.
A more interesting question, indeed, is what sort of standing waves
might conceivably be set up between phone and ear.
An even more interesting question has been raised by audiophiles
discussing possible Doppler effect of full-range loudspeaker cones,
where the large LF excursions of the cone supposedly apply Doppler
distortion to the high frequencies presented by the same cone. Evidence
has so far not been forthcoming that there is any perceptible (or even
measurable) effect, but as is the way with audiophiles, the debate will
run and run.
Richard Dobson
Androcles
> On 09/03/2010 14:33, Androcles wrote:
>>
>> "Richard Dobson" <richar...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:Arsln.340293$UQ6.1...@newsfe04.ams2...
> Wrong. f' = f(c+v_listener )/(c+v_src)
NO, NO, NO,
c-v_listener
f' = f ----------------------
c-v_source
obviously you've never heard (or heard of) a sonic boom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
Note the words "relative to the medium", when the air in the plane is
moving at 5/7 the speed of sound at sea level.
For the engine driver in this thought experiment no shift is heard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut27rSwkV2k
Of course for light there is no medium, so Doppler's equation reduces to
f' = f * (c-v)/c
= f * (c/c-v/c)
= f * (1-v/c)
or if v is at an angle phi to the listener,
f' = f * (1-v/c .cos phi) .
It does not become Einstein's idiocy
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img107.gif
Richard Dobson
>
> "Richard Dobson" <richar...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8Utln.296670$6i7.2...@newsfe06.ams2...
>> On 09/03/2010 14:33, Androcles wrote:
>>>
>>> "Richard Dobson" <richar...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:Arsln.340293$UQ6.1...@newsfe04.ams2...
>
>> Wrong. f' = f(c+v_listener )/(c+v_src)
>
> NO, NO, NO,
>
> c-v_listener
> f' = f ----------------------
> c-v_source
>
>
> obviously you've never heard (or heard of) a sonic boom.
>
Totally irrelevant to listening to headphones ~inside~ the plane. And in
space, there will be no sonic boom, despite the very much higher speed
the typical craft moves at.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
> Note the words "relative to the medium", when the air in the plane is
> moving at 5/7 the speed of sound at sea level.
>
The "medium" in this case refers to that volume within which there is
relative motion. Plane v ground yes, but not passenger v passenger or
passenger v headphone. The air within the plane is not moving, ~relative
to the passengers~, at all. That is all that matters. If it was, it
would likely kill everyone on board (to say nothing of the extreme
sub-zero temperatures!), as most 500+MPH winds would likely do.
> For the engine driver in this thought experiment no shift is heard.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut27rSwkV2k
>
Precisely! He and the train (and the horn) are not moving relative to
each other. He is probably not allowed to wear headphones and listen to
music, but if he was to, it would sound as per usual. That was the
specific example you proposed. So on that matter, at least, we actually
agree.
> Of course for light there is no medium, so Doppler's equation reduces to
..
> It does not become Einstein's idiocy
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img107.gif
>
That is, I suspect, where we will have to agree to disagree; at least
until relativity and QM are finally reconciled into a greater whole (and
that Higgs boson is finally detected). Bring on those 11 dimensions! But
I see that this list is a favoured home for all those who wish to
reinvent Einstein (indeed to reinvent most of physics), or remove him
altogether, despite the absence of any experiment that disproves any of
it, to date, and plenty of evidence that confirms it. Not a game I have
any interest in.
Richard Dobson
Jared
> a
> redshift star and a blueshift star - are they the same? I don't
> think
> so.
If you look at a water wave, the frequency of the wave may vary, but
it is determined by the vertical oscillation of the water, independent
of the horizontal speed of the water. Right?
So why would you think red shifted light has a different speed from
blue shifted light?
If red shifted light is slower, wouldn't radio waves be slower still?
Wouldn't someone have noticed this while building communication
devices and other electronics?
Androcles
> On 09/03/2010 16:08, Androcles wrote:
>>
>> "Richard Dobson" <richar...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:8Utln.296670$6i7.2...@newsfe06.ams2...
>>> On 09/03/2010 14:33, Androcles wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Richard Dobson" <richar...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:Arsln.340293$UQ6.1...@newsfe04.ams2...
>>
>>> Wrong. f' = f(c+v_listener )/(c+v_src)
>>
>> NO, NO, NO,
>>
>> c-v_listener
>> f' = f ----------------------
>> c-v_source
>>
>>
>> obviously you've never heard (or heard of) a sonic boom.
>>
>
> Totally irrelevant to listening to headphones ~inside~ the plane.
NO, NO, NO, not at all, it's a THOUGHT experiment. Pity you can't think.
> And in space, there will be no sonic boom, despite the very much higher
> speed the typical craft moves at.
>
Einstein reckoned he could have a lumic boom.
"It follows from these results that to an observer approaching a source of
light with the velocity c, this source of light must appear of infinite
intensity." - Albert Idiot Einstein, last sentence of Section 7. Theory of
Doppler's Principle and of Aberration.
ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
>> Note the words "relative to the medium", when the air in the plane is
>> moving at 5/7 the speed of sound at sea level.
>>
> The "medium" in this case refers to that volume within which there is
> relative motion. Plane v ground yes, but not passenger v passenger or
> passenger v headphone. The air within the plane is not moving, ~relative
> to the passengers~, at all. That is all that matters. If it was, it
> would likely kill everyone on board (to say nothing of the extreme
> sub-zero temperatures!), as most 500+MPH winds would likely do.
>
That's true for light as well. The problem comes with
"Explaining the nonsense of relativity to 10+ kids" in the thread title.
That is all that matters.
>> For the engine driver in this thought experiment no shift is heard.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut27rSwkV2k
>>
>
> Precisely! He and the train (and the horn) are not moving relative to each
> other. He is probably not allowed to wear headphones and listen to music,
> but if he was to, it would sound as per usual. That was the specific
> example you proposed. So on that matter, at least, we actually agree.
>
>
Not quite so precisely.
c-v
f' = f -------------- = f * 1 = f
c-v
But if v = c, c-v = 0 and division by zero is undefined.
The driver can hear the train whistle if the whistle leads,
if the whistle trails the driver he'll never hear it, the sound
cannot travel forward.
>> Of course for light there is no medium, so Doppler's equation reduces to
> ..
>> It does not become Einstein's idiocy
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img107.gif
>>
> That is, I suspect, where we will have to agree to disagree; at least
> until relativity and QM are finally reconciled into a greater whole (and
> that Higgs boson is finally detected).
The only relevant thing we'll agree to disagree on is your blind faith
in bullshit and your inability to reason mathematically.
> Bring on those 11 dimensions!
Yeah, sure, fill a ten-year-old kid's delicate young mind with abject
nonsense and call it "science". Not a game I have any interest in.
Fuck off, you are a shithead.
Sue...
A 10 year old that can release a homing pigeon once per minute
from a roaming bicycle does not need an explanation of relativity.
Average proficiency in mathematics should suffice.
If the 10 yo is a real bookworm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Sue...
spudnik
anyway, permitivity & pemeability are properties of matter,
not of "vacuum." there is only relative vacuum, as
in "vacuuming."
thus:
it sounds as if you *could* have some thing,
about the deployment of reciprocals by Einstein, but I'd need more
of a qualitative wording of "what went wrong,
penintimately or penultimately."
no; M&M got no null result. the experiment that Al cited, although
it shows no results to its degree of precision, apparently,
is completetly different (as in, "dewars").
things are simpler, using waves:
spherical ones, not "linear" ones!
thus:
why don't you just look it up,
the practice of commercial pilots?
thus:
science is about refining a hypothesis,
which doesn't have to be one's own. most of "global" warming is,
strictly, computerized simulacra & very selective reporting:
the "hole" in the ozone is really, "the sky is glowing!"
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/sample.html
--Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman, ICC's 3rd British invasion of Sudan!
http://laroucehpub.com
spudnik
(actually, he's a literary reference .-)
anyway, let me quote this, re your assertions
about permeability & permitivity:
This now touched on a paradox in the theory of electricity which had
intrigued Moon for his whole life, from early childhood experiments.
to his building of the cyclotron which supplied the first atomic pile,
to his design and construction of the first scanning X-ray microscope.
Namely, if free space is a vacuum, how is it possible that it exhibits
impedance, which is a kind of resistance to the passage of waves that
does not dissipate energy? His answer was that there is no vacuum, and
that what is called free space has a structure. Thus space must be
quantized.3 When these thoughts were put together in his mind with the
paradox of nuclear stability, which had been raised by Harkins’s work
on the meteorites, the Moon model of the nucleus was born.
The structure for the quantization of space turned out to be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_spacehttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
thus:
I'm more interested in Fermat's proof, since
there is utterly no proof that he did not do it.
(actually, he still has an unsolved conjecture !-)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwasawa_theory
thus:
The Harkins School
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/fall%202003/Humbuggery.html
thus:
anyway, permitivity & permeability are properties of matter,
Arindam Banerjee
> On Mar 9, 3:28 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Arindam Banerjee
>
> Oops, I snipped your blather, tee hee.
So easy to do that, ho-ho.
> Is there no end to you internet posers who seek
> intellectual validation?
Just as there is no end to those who cannot or will not understand,
apparently.
> Bet you secretly wish you were J.K.Rowling. Her
> intellect has enabled her to buy ANYTHING she wants,
> or go ANYWHERE at ANYTIME.
You'd lose the bet. No doubt, such is her good fate, as you say. I
do hope that at least a very small percentage of the huge number of
her fans may possibly understand what I have been trying to say. As
there are so many of them, they are possibly unbiased generally
speaking, and they can certainly read! Which is why I have been
posting to the a.f.h-p ng. In hope.
Arindam Banerjee
> On Mar 9, 3:28 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >Just compare the speed of light from
> > a
> > redshift star and a blueshift star - are they the same? I don't
> > think
> > so.
>
> If you look at a water wave, the frequency of the wave may vary, but
> it is determined by the vertical oscillation of the water, independent
> of the horizontal speed of the water. Right?
Wrong. Please get the fundamentals of wave motion correctly. The
water does not move at all. The disturbance moves across the surface
with a certain speed, called the velocity of wave propagation. So
there is no such thing as the horizontal speed of the water.
> So why would you think red shifted light has a different speed from
> blue shifted light?
Because red shift means lower frequency, and blue shift means higher
frequency. This all agree. Now if the wavelength does not actually
change for a given emitted frequency (irrespective of the motion of
the star, going away or near) then if the velocity of light changes
with the velocity of the star, the frequencies will vary, giving the
red shifts or blue shifts. Thus:
if v is the speed of the star, and c the speed of light then
f = (c+v)/wavelength, and this v/wavelength is the blueshift if v is
positive and redshift if v is negative.
See, if the light moves faster, then the peaks of the wave will move
faster past a given point, giving higher frequency.
Way to measure the speeds, from a red shift starlight, and the blue
shift star light, may be done this way.
Consider two cylinders pointed at the two stars, they will capture the
lights from these two stars that redshift or blueshift. Shutter them
instantaneously and capture the light on some film type substance, and
time the arrivals. If there is difference in arrival times, then the
blueshift star is sending light faster. I know this will be a very
difficult thing to do, but will be the conclusive proof. The light
must NOT pass through anything, nor get reflected anyhow. The
cylinders had better be long! Very sensitive equipment will be
required, and I am not sure if this experiment can be done with
present know-how.
> If red shifted light is slower, wouldn't radio waves be slower still?
No. The red shift is occurring because of the motion of the star - the
star is moving. The velocity of propagation of the em wave has
nothing to do with the frequency of the wave, in aether or free space.
> Wouldn't someone have noticed this while building communication
> devices and other electronics?
Doppler radar works all the time, but they insist that it is the
wavelength that actually or apparently changes, while the speed of
light does not. If they agreed that the speed of light changes, and
this is the most natural and intuitive thought, the whole of SR will
crumble to dust.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee
> On Mar 9, 3:28 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> - snip -
>
> A 10 year old that can release a homing pigeon once per minute
> from a roaming bicycle does not need an explanation of relativity.
> Average proficiency in mathematics should suffice.
A homing pigeon is self-energised, is not a projectile nor a wave.
Wrong analogy
Arindam Banerjee
> Harry Potter is a victim of the imperialist PS#1!
> (actually, he's a literary reference .-)
>
> anyway, let me quote this, re your assertions
> about permeability & permitivity:
> This now touched on a paradox in the theory of electricity which had
> intrigued Moon for his whole life, from early childhood experiments.
> to his building of the cyclotron which supplied the first atomic pile,
> to his design and construction of the first scanning X-ray microscope.
> Namely, if free space is a vacuum, how is it possible that it exhibits
> impedance, which is a kind of resistance to the passage of waves that
> does not dissipate energy? His answer was that there is no vacuum, and
> that what is called free space has a structure. Thus space must be
> quantized.3 When these thoughts were put together in his mind with the
> paradox of nuclear stability, which had been raised by Harkins’s work
> on the meteorites, the Moon model of the nucleus was born.
>
> The structure for the quantization of space turned out to be
>
>
> thus:
> I'm more interested in Fermat's proof, since
> there is utterly no proof that he did not do it.
> (actually, he still has an unsolved conjecture !-)
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwasawa_theory
>
> thus:
>
> thus:
> anyway, permitivity & permeability are properties of matter,
> not of "vacuum." there is only relative vacuum, as
> in "vacuuming."
>
> thus:
> it sounds as if you *could* have some thing,
> about the deployment of reciprocals by Einstein, but I'd need more
> of a qualitative wording of "what went wrong,
> penintimately or penultimately."
> no; M&M got no null result. the experiment that Al cited,
> although
> it shows no results to its degree of precision, apparently,
> is completetly different (as in, "dewars").
> things are simpler, using waves:
> spherical ones, not "linear" ones!
>
> thus:
> why don't you just look it up,
> the practice of commercial pilots?
>
> thus:
> science is about refining a hypothesis,
> which doesn't have to be one's own. most of "global" warming is,
> strictly, computerized simulacra & very selective reporting:
> the "hole" in the ozone is really, "the sky is glowing!"
>
>
> --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/sample.html
Harry Potter is a wizard, and magic is the opposite to cynicsm, the
core of corruption. Thus my hopes from the Harry Potter fans.
The structure of free space is aether, which is the solid medium for
em waves.
magnetic permeability and electric permittivity are the measurable
characteristics of aether, which permeates all matter, being very
fine.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
J. Clarke
If the speed of light changed then you would get different return times
for objects moving towards and away from the radar when the objects were
side by side. Is that observed to happen?
Richard Dobson
>>
>> If you look at a water wave, the frequency of the wave may vary, but
>> it is determined by the vertical oscillation of the water, independent
>> of the horizontal speed of the water. Right?
>
> Wrong. Please get the fundamentals of wave motion correctly. The
> water does not move at all. The disturbance moves across the surface
> with a certain speed, called the velocity of wave propagation. So
> there is no such thing as the horizontal speed of the water.
>
Right. Perhaps he should have written "independent of any horizontal
speed". Water can and does move - e.g. in a river. Throw a stone into
the moving water and the ripples will still spread out in a circle -
~independently~ (with local displacements due to passing wave fronts
vertical as described) of any global downstream motion there may or may
not be. Unless of course you do indend to mean that the wave
propagation is ~not~ independent of the horizontal speed of the water.
>
> Because red shift means lower frequency, and blue shift means higher
> frequency. This all agree. Now if the wavelength does not actually
> change for a given emitted frequency (irrespective of the motion of
> the star, going away or near) then if the velocity of light changes
> with the velocity of the star, the frequencies will vary, giving the
> red shifts or blue shifts.
.. I have a few questions in order to fully comprehend this theory:
What are the lower and upper limits of the speed of light in this
scenario? Indeed, are there any?
How does the light behave when the star is not moving, but the observer
is? That is, when ~we~ are approaching the star at some velocity
sufficient to manifest blue-shift? How do we tell ~who~ is moving?
Richard Dobson
Androcles
Like this, Dobson:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm
It gets interesting when this happens:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
spudnik
you graduate from a PS, you have to either a)
go to Oxford (PS#1), or b)
join the Royal Armed Forces.
permeability & permitivity are not properties of nothing, or
some absolute vacuum that the Copenhagenskoolers created
for Schroedinger's cat finally to croak in!
air, for instance has these two properties.
> magnetic permeability and electric permittivity are the measurable
> characteristics of aether, which permeates all matter, being very
> fine.
thus:
like Bucky said,
Time is not a dimension. or, it's the only dimension,
whereby we measure all of the others. anyway,
there is not need for such a goofy concept as "spacetime,"
since it is just a phase-space.
formally, Hamilton developed n-dimensional phase-spaces and
configuration spaces, Hamiltonians, but so are quaternions, if
so-used (to model special relativity e.g.,
where it is obviously the "real" parameter).
interestingly, before he created vector mechanics (quaternions),
he developed complex numbers qua time, but I don't recall,
how it worked.
thus:
cut it; don't print it.
that'd all be well & good for Trickier Dick (from the Nixon
Admin.;
care to guess what his official role, was?), but it was totally
unneeded
for his imperial presidency. there are at least two EOs that made
him,
not only the acting president, but also the head of the NSC -- as well
as for HW, Quayle, Gore and Biden (iff Trickier is not actually,
still, acting president; which youd think,
with the whackos promoting the 3rd British invasion of Sudan,
on the Africa Desk).
now, as to why Janitor Rodriquez believes that
"de planes" were inadequate bombs,
I did not get to ask him.
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
--The Ides of March Are Coming:
Pro-Impeachment Democrat
Wins Nomination in Texas!
http://larouchepub.com
Arindam Banerjee
Don't think they can measure that with pulse radar. The speed of an
object is found by successive scans, using say Kalman filtering
techniques when we use pulse radar. A single pulse only gives the
range.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Arindam Banerjee
>
> --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
>
> --The Ides of March Are Coming:
> Pro-Impeachment Democrat
> Wins Nomination in Texas!http://larouchepub.com
Mate, is there something I could explain further on what I have been
talking about, or could you please be a bit more clear about what you
want to convey.